alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
---

EXHIBIT 31.1

I, Michael Lee, chief executive officer of AlphaRx, Inc. certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10QSB of AlphaRx, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and have:

> a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
>   information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
>   subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,
>   particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being
>   prepared;
>   b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
>   procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
>   quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
>   c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the
>   effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation
>   as of the Evaluation Date;

5. We have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

> a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
>   controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
>   process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
>   registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
>   b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
>   employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls;
>   and

6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there
were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: February 14, 2006

/s/ Michael Lee

Michael Lee, Chief Executive Officer

---
Exhibit  32.a








CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE


13a-14(b) UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


(as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








As required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Jeffrey A. Craig, hereby certify that:





|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | The Annual Report of Meritor, Inc. on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) for the fiscal year ended October 1, 2017 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and




|   |                                                                                                                                                       
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | The information contained in that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Meritor, Inc.



















/s/ Jeffrey A. CraigJeffrey A. CraigChief Executive Officer andPresident








Date:  December 15, 2017
Ronald James RICHARDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2704

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed December 7, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Matthew Funderburk, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and L. Charlene Matthews, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Richards appeals his violation of probation sentence arguing that the trial court erred in imposing costs of investigation in the absence of a request from the State or any evidence from the investigating agency. We agree. *See* *Taylor v. State*, 242 So.3d 1203-1204 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) ; *Foulkes v. State*, 221 So.3d 789, 790 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). We therefore remand for the trial court to strike these costs from the judgment, noting that the State should be given the opportunity to request the imposition of investigative costs. *See* *McCarthy v. State*, 893 So.2d 689, 690 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

TORPY, LAMBERT, and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 10(d) EXCLUSIVE USE AND DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
By & Between
IVI SMART TECHNOLOGIES, INC. & e-SMART TECHNOLOGIES, INC. This EXCLUSIVE USE AND DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT is made as of the 6th day of
September 2001, by and between IVI Smart Technologies, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (hereinafter IVI) and e-Smart Technologies, Inc., a Nevada
corporation, both with offices at 437 Madison Avenue, 39th Floor, New York, New
York 10022 (hereinafter ESMT). W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the wholly owned subsidiary of ESMT, e Smart Systems, Inc, a
Nevada corporation (eSSI), is the exclusive licensee for China of IVIs smart
card technologies (the Technology); and WHEREAS, eSSI and ESMT have been thwarted in their efforts to deliver
products based on the Technology in China due primarily to the embargo caused
by the Tiananmen Sanctions; and WHEREAS, ESMT has spent consider time and money to create marketing and
development teams to promote and improve the Technology; and WHEREAS, IVI, the technology owner, is a holding company without marketing
operations and is seeking to expand the territory in which its Technology is
being exploited; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
hereinafter set forth, and for other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. APPOINTMENT: Subject to the limitations set forth herein, IVI hereby
grants to ESMT the exclusive right to manufacture, market and distribute
products that utilize the Technology throughout the territory of Asia (not
including South Asia) (the Exclusive Territory) pursuant to the terms of this
Agreement which shall include by reference the terms of the existing agreement
between IVI and eSSI and any modifications made thereto, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Schedule A, and made a part hereof. 2. IMPROVEMENTS: The Appointment of ESMT shall include any improvements
to the Technology, and any new smart card systems and/or products developed by
IVI or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries or related entities or any new
smart card systems and/or products jointly developed by IVI and any other party
(including




---



##### 



ESMT) with whom IVI may develop such products (the foregoing being
referred to herein collectively as the Products) within the Exclusive
Territory (as defined herein above) provided thatand as a condition to this
Agreement to remain in force and effect, any improvement or development made by
ESMT or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates to the Products and/or the
Technology shall be immediately assigned to IVI with a free license to use same
given back to ESMT. 3. THE REST: All other terms and conditions shall be as contained in
Exhibit A and any modifications thereto. In case of any ambiguity or
discrepancy between this Agreement and Exhibit A, this Agreement shall
control. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has caused this Agreement
to be executed on its behalf by its duly authorized representative as the date
first above written. IVI SMART TECHNOLOGIES, INC. By:
Its: e-SMART TECHNOLOGIES, INC. By:
Its:
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_science(6)
              - products_data(1)
              - products_publications(75)
              - products_software(1)
              - products_web_tools(2)
              - multimedia_audio(1)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(1)
              - multimedia_image(4)
              - multimedia_image-141771(3)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_video(5)
              - multimedia_video-149194(2)
              - multimedia_video-149195(3)
              - news_news-149245(3)
              - news_news-149248(2)
              - news_news-149250(2)
              - (-)connect_staff_profiles(3)

## By Location

              - alaska(3)
              - arizona(5)
              - arkansas(5)
              - colorado(6)
              - connecticut(1)
              - delaware(1)
              - florida(2)
              - georgia(1)
              - illinois(2)
              - kansas(1)
              - louisiana(1)
              - maine(2)
              - maryland(1)
              - massachusetts(7)
              - michigan(2)
              - minnesota(2)
              - missouri(1)
              - montana(3)
              - nebraska(1)
              - new hampshire(1)
              - new jersey(2)
              - new mexico(1)
              - new york(7)
              - north carolina(1)
              - north dakota(1)
              - (-)oregon(3)
              - pennsylvania(1)
              - puerto rico(1)
              - texas(3)
              - utah(2)
              - vermont(1)
              - virginia(1)
              - washington(3)
              - wisconsin(6)
              - wyoming(1)

## By Year

              - 2024(3)

staff profileJim E O'Connor

staff profileMackenzie Keith

staff profileJohn C. Hammond, PhD
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_science(9)
              - products_publications(35)
              - products_web_tools(1)
              - multimedia_image(12)
              - multimedia_image-141771(7)
              - multimedia_image-141775(5)
              - multimedia_video(5)
              - multimedia_video-149194(2)
              - multimedia_video-149195(3)
              - news_news-149245(1)
              - news_news-149248(2)
              - news_other_news(4)
              - connect_staff_profiles(1)
              - (-)other_basic-42(1)

## By Location

              - american samoa(1)
              - california(2)
              - colorado(3)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(1)
              - connecticut(1)
              - delaware(3)
              - district of columbia(3)
              - florida(2)
              - guam(1)
              - hawaii(1)
              - iowa(1)
              - maine(1)
              - maryland(3)
              - massachusetts(2)
              - michigan(1)
              - montana(1)
              - nebraska(1)
              - new hampshire(1)
              - new jersey(1)
              - new york(1)
              - ohio(1)
              - pennsylvania(1)
              - puerto rico(1)
              - rhode island(1)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - virginia(1)
              - washington(2)
              - (-)wyoming(1)

## By Year

General        July 30, 2021        How low is the streamflow? Using historical streamflow data to give perspective on current conditions (July 19-25, 2021)
Caleb Andrew FERNANDEZ, Doc #Y39282, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2371

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 21, 2018

Ryan Thomas Truskoski of Ryan Thomas Truskoski, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Chelsea S. Alper, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, KELLY, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

URBANO JIMENEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-72898 

Agency No. A088-130-567 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 18, 2021**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. 

Urbano Jimenez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to 

reconsider and reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 25 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-72898 

reconsider and the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 

785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for 

review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Jimenez’s motion to 

reconsider and reopen as untimely and number barred, where it was filed more 

than 10 years after the order of removal became final and was beyond the 

numerical limitations. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(A), (7)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 

1003.2(b)(2), (c)(2). The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying 

Jimenez’s motion to reopen based on changed country conditions, where he did not 

establish prima facie eligibility for relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Toufighi v. 

Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (petitioner must demonstrate prima 

facie eligibility for the relief sought). We reject as unsupported by the record 

Jimenez’s contention that the agency erred in its analysis of his claim.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination not to reopen 

proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-824 

(9th Cir. 2011); cf. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]his 

court has jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for 

the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or 

constitutional error.”).
3 20-72898 

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate. The motion for stay of removal is otherwise denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
Exhibit 31.2
 
 I, Donald F. Volk, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Kenexa Corporation;
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
 
 a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 b.   Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
 
 c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors:
 
 a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 
 b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
 
 Date: May 6, 2011        /s/ Donald F. Volk

---------------------------

Donald F. Volk

Chief Financial Officer
Motion Granted and Order filed December 21 , 2017.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14 - 17 - 00600 - CV

____________ KURT GODFREY CLARKE , Appellant

V. HARRIS COUNTY, THE H ARRIS COUNTY DEPARTM ENT OF EDUCATION, THE PORT OF HOUSTON AUTHO RITY OF HARRIS COUNTY, THE HARRIS C OUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, THE HARRIS COUNTY HOSPIT AL DISTRICT, THE CIT Y OF HOUSTON , THE HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND THE HOUSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM, Appellee s

On Appeal from the 333rd District Cour t

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2009 - 30394

____________ NO. 14 - 17 - 00709 - CV

____________ KURT GODFREY CLARKE , AppellantV.

HARRIS COUNTY, THE H ARRIS COUNTY DEPARTM ENT OF EDUCATION, THE PORT OF HOUSTON AUTHORITY OF HARRIS COUNTY, THE HARRIS C OUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, THE HARRIS COUNTY HOSPIT AL DISTRICT, THE CIT Y OF HOUSTON , THE HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND THE HOUSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM, Appellee s

On Appeal from the 333rd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2009 - 30394



### ORDER On July 21, 2017, appellant filed a notice of appeal from an order signed April 18, 2017, and the appeal was assigned to this court under appellate number 14

- 17

- 00600

- CV. On August 28, 2017, appellant filed a notice of appeal f rom an order signed July 28, 2017 in the same trial court proceeding, and the appeal was assigned to this court under appellate number 14

- 17

- 00709

- CV. On December 4, 2017, appellees filed a motion to consolidate the related appeals. Appellant opposes the motion. After considering the issues raised by appellant and appellees, the motion is GRANTED , and we issue the following order: We order the appeals pending under our appellate case numbers 14

- 17

- 00600

- CV and 14

- 17

- 00709

- CV CONSOLIDATED . The existing fil ing deadlines in a ppellate case number 14

- 17

- 00600

- CV will apply to both cases. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Donovan, and Jewell.
Exhibit 99.1


OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

Re: Impac CMB Trust Series 2003-6, Collateralized Asset-Backed
Bonds, Series 2003-6

I, Mario R. Fegan, Jr., hereby certify that I am the Vice President,
Master Servicing, of Impac Funding Corporation.  I further certify,
with respect to the Servicing Agreement, as Master Servicer, the
following:

1. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the
preceding calendar year and of its performance under the Servicing
Agreement has been made under my supervision;

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master
Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Servicing
Agreement for such year;

3. A review of the activities of each Subservicer during the
Subservicer's most recently ended fiscal year on or prior to
December 31, 2003 and its performance under its Subservicing Agreement
has been made under my supervision; and

4. To the best of my knowledge, based on my review and the certification
of an officer of each Subservicer, each Subservicer has performed and
fulfilled its duties, responsibilities and obligations under the
Servicing Agreement and its Subservicing Agreement in all material
respects throughout the year.



IMPAC FUNDING CORPORATION,
as Master Servicer

By:  /s/ Mario R. Fegan, Jr.
Name: Mario R. Fegan, Jr.
Title:  Vice President, Master Servicing
Exhibit 99.2


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AlphaRx, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the
period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, Marcel Urbanc, as chief financial officer of
AlphaRx, Inc., do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
his knowledge:

      3.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
            the Exchange Act; and

      4.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
            of AlphaRx, Inc.



/s/ Marcel Urbanc
-----------------------
Marcel Urbanc
Chief Financial Officer
May 13, 2003


23
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 27, 2010 

s0920 

Order 

 

September 27, 2010 

140975 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140975 

 COA: 296825 

Oakland CC: 2001-177540-FC 

ANGELO JOE AMADOR, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 8, 2010 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion 

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).